1 / 21

Sterile Neutrino Oscillations and CP-Violation Implications for MiniBooNE NuFact’07 Okayama, Japan

Sterile Neutrino Oscillations and CP-Violation Implications for MiniBooNE NuFact’07 Okayama, Japan. Georgia Karagiorgi, Columbia University August 10, 2007. Outline. Sterile neutrino oscillation formalism Oscillation analysis Constraints from MiniBooNE result

paloma
Download Presentation

Sterile Neutrino Oscillations and CP-Violation Implications for MiniBooNE NuFact’07 Okayama, Japan

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Sterile Neutrino Oscillations and CP-Violation Implications for MiniBooNENuFact’07Okayama, Japan Georgia Karagiorgi, Columbia University August 10, 2007

  2. Outline • Sterile neutrino oscillation formalism • Oscillation analysis • Constraints from MiniBooNE result • Preliminary oscillation analysis results • CPV Implications and Future Studies at MiniBooNE Georgia Karagiorgi, Columbia U.

  3. Sterile Neutrino Oscillation Formalism • 3 active + n sterile neutrinos: • lightsterile neutrinos • they don’t interact thru standard weak couplings • they have very small active flavor content (Ue4,Uμ4, …, Uen, Uμn) •  can participate in neutrino oscillations • For example, for 2 sterile neutrinos (3+2): Oscillation: Disappearance: νe νμ ντ νs Georgia Karagiorgi, Columbia U.

  4. Oscillation Analysis Neutrino oscillations and disappearance due to sterile neutrinos can be constrained by short-baseline experiments (sensitive to high Δm2) We are interested in: • constraining the oscillation parameters by a combined analysis of SBL data • studying the compatibility of null SBL results with LSND and MiniBooNE results in a 3 active + n sterile neutrino hypothesis constraint (90%CL) Georgia Karagiorgi, Columbia U.

  5. Oscillation Analysis Using data from short baseline experiments: • Start with unoscillated signal predictions from: • Generate model parameters (importance sampling via Markov chain) • For each set of parameters, • get signal prediction after oscillation/disappearance for all experiments considered • compare signal prediction to experimental data and calculate , goodness-of-fit for each experiment considered, and combined , goodness-of-fit • determine allowed regions by Gaussian approx. Dataset: LSND, KARMEN, NOMAD, MB, CCFR, CDHS, CHOOZ, BUGEY (+ atm constraint) # of bins: 5 9 30 8 18 15 14 60 (1) appearance experiments disappearance experiments Model acceptance probability: Georgia Karagiorgi, Columbia U.

  6. Oscillation Analysis 3+n model parameter assumptions: Approximation: m1≈ m2≈ m3≈ 0  n independent mass splittings: 2n moduli of mixing parameters: Ue4, Uμ4, … n-1 Dirac CPV phases 0.1eV2 ≤ ≤ 100eV2(motivated by LSND signal) (imposed by atm and solar data) Atmospheric constraint: upper limit: CP violation option: Fix , or allow to vary within For example, for 3+2 oscillations: 2 indep. mass splittings: 4 moduli: 1 CPV phase: No CPV allowed for 3+1 models! [M. Maltoni, et al., hep-ph/0405172] Georgia Karagiorgi, Columbia U.

  7. Constraints from MiniBooNE Recent MiniBooNE result implies that MiniBooNE is incompatible with LSND within 2-neutrino oscillation hypothesis. [see talk by C. Polly] Calls for more complicated oscillation scenario (e.g., 3+2, CPV, …) in order to reconcile the two results. Interested in “low-E excess” and implications for 3+n We consider the full energy range data (300 MeV < E < 3000 MeV) in our analysis. “A Search for Electron Neutrino Appearance at the Δm2 ~ 1eV2 Scale,” The MiniBooNE Collaboration [hep-ex/0704.1500]. Georgia Karagiorgi, Columbia U.

  8. MiniBooNE Dataset Allow both: (oscillations) and: ( disappearance) ( background disappearance) Use a ratio method: Compare: ratio from MC prediction (first principles) after applying oscillation, disappearance, disappearance to: ratio from data MC prediction = nbinsBooNE = 8, ndfBooNE = nbinsBooNE – 2nsterile –2nsterile– (nsterile-1) NEW!!! with energy spectrum (full νμνe conversion; takes into account different cross sections) intrinsic ~0.5% of beam full MiniBooNE error matrix (scaled to MC prediction) [see talk by K. Mahn] CPV case Georgia Karagiorgi, Columbia U.

  9. Preliminary Oscillation Results: 3+1 3+1 already excluded from previous studies (independent of MiniBooNE result) MiniBooNE oscillation upper limits in 3+1 scenario: [See, e.g.: M. Sorel, et al., hep-ph/0305255 and talk by T. Schwetz] 1 1 1 90% CL excluded regions Single-sided raster scan, 2 dof P r e l i m i n a r y Georgia Karagiorgi, Columbia U.

  10. Preliminary Oscillation Results: 3+1 3+1 already excluded from previous studies (independent of MiniBooNE result) MiniBooNE oscillation upper limits in 3+1 scenario: [See, e.g.: M. Sorel, et al., hep-ph/0305255 and talk by T. Schwetz] 90% CL excluded regions Single-sided raster scan, 2 dof P r e l i m i n a r y Georgia Karagiorgi, Columbia U.

  11. Preliminary Oscillation Results: 3+1 3+1 already excluded from previous studies (independent of MiniBooNE result) MiniBooNE disappearance upper limits in 3+1 scenario: [See, e.g.: M. Sorel, et al., hep-ph/0305255] 1 0 0 1 90% CL excluded regions Single-sided raster scan, 2 dof P r e l i m i n a r y Georgia Karagiorgi, Columbia U.

  12. Preliminary Oscillation Results: 3+1 3+1 already excluded from previous studies (independent of MiniBooNE result) MiniBooNE disappearance upper limits in 3+1 scenario: [See, e.g.: M. Sorel, et al., hep-ph/0305255] 0 0 1 90% CL excluded regions Single-sided raster scan, 2 dof P r e l i m i n a r y Georgia Karagiorgi, Columbia U.

  13. Preliminary Oscillation Results: 3+2 For comparison, we show 2 analyses: • MiniBooNE data with oscillations only • MiniBooNE data with oscillations andand disappearance In both cases we show results from fits with: • Appearance only experiments • All experiments combined Georgia Karagiorgi, Columbia U.

  14. Preliminary Oscillation Results: 3+2Allowing Only Oscillations in MiniBooNE Data Appearance-only experiments: KARMEN, MB, LSND, NOMAD CPC CPV P r e l i m i n a r y P r e l i m i n a r y 90%CL 99%CL Georgia Karagiorgi, Columbia U.

  15. Preliminary Oscillation Results: 3+2Allowing and Disappearance Also Appearance-only experiments: KARMEN, MB, LSND, NOMAD CPC CPV P r e l i m i n a r y P r e l i m i n a r y 90%CL 99%CL Georgia Karagiorgi, Columbia U.

  16. Preliminary Oscillation Results: 3+2Allowing Only Oscillations in MiniBooNE Data Combined analysis: all experiments CPC CPV P r e l i m i n a r y P r e l i m i n a r y 90%CL 99%CL Georgia Karagiorgi, Columbia U.

  17. Preliminary Oscillation Results: 3+2Allowing and Disappearance Also Combined analysis: all experiments CPC CPV P r e l i m i n a r y P r e l i m i n a r y 90%CL 99%CL Georgia Karagiorgi, Columbia U.

  18. General Remarks for 3+2 • There are allowed 3+2 regions • Allowing and disappearance along with oscillations to describe MiniBooNE data does not seem to either favor or disfavor combined fits, compared to only allowing • There is no preference for CPC vs. CPV scheme • Best fit models: • CPC combined analysis: • CPV combined analysis: Georgia Karagiorgi, Columbia U.

  19. CP-Violation: Implications for MiniBooNE Allowed MiniBooNE oscillation probability asymmetry within 3+2 oscillation scenario: MC predicted MiniBooNE full-osc rates 90%CL 99%CL Allowed region obtained using constraints from null SBL + LSND experiments only [G. K. et al., hep-ph/0609177]. Georgia Karagiorgi, Columbia U.

  20. CP-Violation: Implications for MiniBooNE MiniBooNE asymmetry predicted based on 3+2 best fit model for CPV combined analysis: 90%CL 99%CL Asymmetry significance ~ 1 assuming 6x1020 POTin both neutrino and antineutrino running mode (data collected as of now: neutrino mode: 7.0x1020 POT antineutrino mode: 2.4x1020 POT) Georgia Karagiorgi, Columbia U.

  21. Conclusions • Both CPC and CPV 3+2 oscillation scenarios are allowed by a combined analysis of SBL data, including LSND and MiniBooNE • MiniBooNE provides strong limits on oscillations and limits on and disappearancewithin a 3+1 hypothesis • MiniBooNE data: important in addressing the viability of sterile neutrino models • Leptonic CP-violation possibility opened up in the 3+2 sterile neutrino hypothesis could have measurable effects at MiniBooNE • A longer running in anti-neutrino mode would allow more detailed studies of CPV scenario and more confident determination of a possible CPV phase Georgia Karagiorgi, Columbia U.

More Related